Talk:Excelsior class/archive
Somehow, a ? got stuck on top of the Specs box when i made the page. Can't seem to find it in the edit. Feel free to zap it, anyone! --- Valaraukar I updated the "History" of this page. However, I am not 100 percent sure if everything is completely canon, as some is from "quasi-canon" sources (such as the DSN Technical Manuel and the Spaceflight Chronoloy) as well... I will be working on "Interior" in a few days, perhaps tomorrow or so... Oh, and the writers of the refences books may be added, if anyone knows this...? Ottens 19:05, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) Would someone please explain me where all this History stuff comes from? I cannot remember one episode where it was stated when the Excelsior was laid down, nor how many vessels were ordered. We don't even know for sure if our understanding of Transwarp is the same as of 2285 -- maybe it doesn't mean anything else than "ships got faster" and they had to recalibrate the warpscale! -- Kobi 20:18, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I recommending removing all data to this page for examination, and incorporating only data we can confirm as accurate. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel Here you go! You can add comments at the end of every paragraph. -- Redge 20:44, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Just so you know, I've removed all the points of discussion we already agreed upon; this page is crowded! I hope you don't mind, but I removed only that were everyone agreed upon in the first place. Ottens 17:03, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) ---- Still non-canon information here? Is there still non-canon info on the Excelsior page? I was under the impression all non-canon information was already removed... :S Ottens 17:46, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) ---- History Although the "great experiment" of the transwarp drive proved a failure, there was nothing wrong with the basical engineering of the space frame, and in all other areas the Excelsior class was still the most advanced ship in Starfleet. So in light of this, Starfleet rapidly decided to fit the Excelsior class with a more conventional propulsion system. Other modifications included a different bridge structure and a different shuttle-bay structure. Today the ships of the Excelsior class continue in service. *Canon. -- Redge 20:44, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) *I think that calling it a failure is a bit to speculative, since the removal of one propulsion system and the addition of another is all supposition, it could just as well be that the drive itself was a modification of a conventional design that simply failed to deliver transwarp speeds. --Captain Mike K. Bartel *Speculative -- Kobi :Propose: Although the "great experiment" of the transwarp drive failed to create a revolution in the nature of warp speeds and space travel, the ''Excelsior spaceframe was still the most advanced design in Starfleet. After prototype runs, some modifications were made, such as a different bridge structure and a different shuttle-bay structure to the NCC-2000 class-ship. Several variations of the original design continue in service up to the Dominion War.'' :seems less hevy handed in explaining that we don't know what happened -- Captain Mike K. Bartel ::Good proposal. Changed. Ottens 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) ---- Design and Construction History In the mid 220s, the Miranda, Oberth, and Constitution class vessels represented the backbone of Starfleet. The Miranda served a multitude of roles in deep-space war patrol along the Klingon and Romulan Neutral Zones, but also as police frigates and hospital ships throughout the Federation. With the Miranda class supplanting the Oberth as a surveyor and deep-space scientific platform, the Constitution class was the true ship-of-the-line for the Starfleet. :Could someone who completely understands this paragraph rewrite it to be a bit more understandable? The way it reads now, it says that the Miranda class did everything in the fleet, but still the Constitution class was called greater. -- Redge 20:09, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::I don't remember the 220s, must've been all that LDS. We don't know the state of the fleet in the 2260s, 70s or 80s, except that Constitution''s and later ''Oberth''s and ''Miranda''s, were part of it, and the ''Constitution''s were fast and powerful, the ''Oberth''s were weak, the ''Miranda''s weren't. The only thing we know about the ''Excelsior in relation to them is that it was faster and bigger, and probably stronger. We can leave a mention of the political atmosphere in, however. There were the stirrings of conflict with Romulans in the 60s, and the continuing cold war with the Klingons that broke into random fighting depicted in the films, could be attributed to the need for a ship of Excelsior's size and such.--Captain Mike K. Bartel ::The Oberth Class starship is clearly a science vessel only. The Constitutions were the most powerful in the fleet at the time, but there were only a hand full of them. The Constitutions were for the "real though" explorations missions. So it is a logical assumptions that the Miranda (classified as a frigate) took some of the less heavier explorations, police, and scout missions. To make things more clear, I made some minor changes to this paragraph. It now reads as followed. Ottens 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) In the mid 2200s, the the ''Oberth, Miranda, and Constitution class vessels represented the backbone of Starfleet. The Oberth class was a deep-space scientific platform, dedicated almost solely to science missions. The Miranda served as a multi-role starship in patrol along the Klingon and Romulan borders, but also as a police frigate throughout the Federation. The Constitution class vessels, however, were Starfleet's true ship-of-the-line starships, representing the Federation's most advanced technologies in her time.'' However, the Constitution class was showing its age in engagements and endurance as the threat to Federation safety from the Klingon Empire increased. Starfleet was in need of a starship that would not only compliment the Miranda class, but also supplant the highly succesful Constitution class. Further, this vessel had to have a longer on-station time than the Constitutional class, more firepower, and most of all, be faster than the ship it was replacing. *The Miranda is irrelevant here also, its not the only ship in the fleet! The relations of the Excelsior''s' size and power in comparison to ''Constitution''s is acceptable, however --Captain Mike K. Bartel **The Excelsior was not only to replace the Explorer Constitution, but also the patrol frigate Miranda. Ottens 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Your version of the Miranda's role is entirely made up. We've never heard one called a police ship or a frigate. I think it is entirely speculative to cliam the Mirandas and Oberths had any roled besides what was shown. Can't you just take a general context and say **''The Excelsior replaced many current classes WHICH INCLUDE the Miranda and Oberth rather than blindly assuming they are the only ships in the fleet. *DS9 TM lists Miranda as a medium cruiser, by the way, not a frigate. ***We don't know that the Miranda was a patrol vessel. ***We don't know that it was a frigate. ***We don't know whether it was a "backbone" of anything. We only saw 2 or 3 in the whole Original movie era! ***We know the Excelsior wasnt designed to replace it, the Miranda continued in service at least as long. ***The only thing we know is that the Excelsior representing a phasing out of the Constitution, but we have no idea of its relations with other smaller vessels like the Miranda.--Captain Mike K. Bartel :It was shown the Oberth was a science vessel, and seeing how it isn't exactly the most powerful ship in the fleet, it is safe to assume that it was constructed with the idea of being a scientific platform. The Constitution was the state-of-the-art mid-2300s starship. Because it was a new, advanced vessel, there were only a hand full operative. Besides the Miranda, we know of no ships in that era, so it is quite safe to assume that the Miranda was for the tasks to dangerous for the Oberth, and not "dangerous enough" for the Constitution; a police/patrol frigate. About "backbone": the Constitutions were "new" and there were not so many of them available. The Oberth was to weak to do the more dangerous missions, so having no other vessels besides this three seen, the Miranda is quite logical to be the "backbone" patrol frigate. Please make sure you read the new "Design and Construction History" paragraph, as I've already changed most things. Ottens 17:40, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Quite logical, but not necessarily true. Speculation is the bane of a reference work, i highly disapprove of this pointless supposition.--Captain Mike K. Bartel ---- Construction History When Starfleet approved the design, one single vessel was to be constructed. The theory that speeds beyond Warp Ten were possible was until then never proven. So far, experimental probe drives either ran out of fuel or failed to break Warp 9.5 with their current drive system, as the test vehicle lacked the subspace field characteristics of an actual starship. *Never heard of this either --Captain Mike K. Bartel *Not canon either, didn't the Enterprise surpass warp 10 in By Any Other Name? -- Kobi :Corrected. Paragraph now reads as follows: Ottens 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) When Starfleet approved the design, one prototype vessel was constructed. The theory that speeds beyond Warp Ten were possible was until then never proven in practice. ::Still disagree, since 1) we know the 1701 did warp 14 once in TOS. why not say "transwarp speeds" rather than "speeds beyond warp 10".. The whole warp 10 part was never mentioned anywhere on Star Trek. --Captain Mike K. Bartel :That "Warp 14" was on the OLD WARP SCALE, probably.... *roll eyes* Ottens 16:59, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Yes, but **no one has ever mentioned the change in the warp scales, so we have no data or reasoning as to what they have to do with this class **we have no information as to when the new scale took over.. **no one has ever mentioned anything about the prospective speeds made possible by the transwarp experiment except that "it would break the Enterprise's speed records." *This entire business of making up imaginary facts about what the Excelsior's speed was supposed to be makes me ROLL EYES--Captain Mike K. Bartel :Lol. :P Anyway, I thought it was quite an established fact, that the warp scale of The Original Series, and that of TNG and beyond is different. When I look at Constitution Class at EAS, it says, "old warp scale". Warp Ten is not possible (well, not yet), and if it IS possible (we've seen it on occassion)... there is no speed BEYOND Warp Ten. Warp Ten is the limit, the maximum, which was thought to be unreachable. But there are no speeds beyond that.... Ottens 17:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Ans yet I seem to recall the Ent-D doing warp 13 in All Good Things... -- Redge 17:37, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::I always thought All Good Things was considered to have taken place in an alternative universe. Anyway, Warp Ten is the limit, Warp Ten is not able to be everwhere in a second, it IS being everywhere. So Warp 14 is supposed to "be everywhere", only then 4 times more? Ottens 17:40, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::::Its common knowledge that the warp scale changed. But since we dont know when it changed, or why, any mention of it in relation to Excelsior, the 2280s, or in relation to transwarp drive is simply baseless. We have no idea if the ship was measured in the old scale or new, and they never even MENTIONED "warp 10" in relation to the ship, unless you can provide a canon source. Its hearsay and speculation of the worst kind unless you can quote a source --Captain Mike K. Bartel Alright, I removed that paragraph. Ottens 21:47, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) ---- After action reports indicated that Captain Scott had succeeded in sabotaging completely and totally the transwarp drive. The complexity of its design was its downfall, and the Excelsior class returned to spacedock under impulse power, and it's transwarp drive was removed and repliced with a conventional warp drive system. *Not exactly canon, but "the logical thing to conclude". -- Redge 20:44, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) *comes from the TNG Technical Manual, if I may guess -- Kobi *i think everything after "impulse power," should go, even if it is Tech manual speculation--Captain Mike K. Bartel :Logical assumption. Ottens 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Does any one have objections on this paragraph still? Ottens 17:46, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::I still disagree with speculating that the drive was replaced. We only know that transwarp failed, not that they did anything to the engines. possibly the engines were standard, but they simply no longer tried to use them to gain transwarp speeds.--Captain Mike K. Bartel As far as I know, warp drive systems and transwarp drive systems are competely different, and it is quite unlikely that the transwarp system was just kept in place and used for warp instead. The engines/nacelles were probably quite identical, but I think there's a big difference between a warp reactor core and a tranwarp reactor core... Ottens 21:47, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) Although I agree that the removal of the transwarp enignes isn't strickly canonical, I do think some leniancy is permitted here and the fact that they were removed seems so implicitly logical that I think the writers never even bothered to put it in. -- Redge 11:45, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) ---- Refit Again, the basic design of the Excelsior space frame was modified, addressing individually the specific problems with the current design. The resulting redesign addressed all concerns about the Excelsior class, and the Excelsior-Refit, like the Constitution-Refit 30 years earlier, doubled the utility of the vessel without sacrificing production time or costs. Additional armor, along with placement of the impulse engines within the primary neck structure and saucer section gave the vessel additional combat maneuverability and survivability. Despite the limitations of the original design, Starfleet was quite happy with the existing space frame, issuing contracts to bring the total number of Excelsior class vessels up to 100, while the Excelsior-Refit class contract would place the number of vessels at 25 when the first contract with McKinley Station and San Francisco Fleet Yards was completed. * This section needs context, this is all non-cano, the only canon refits we know of are not even mentioned here! --Captain Mike K. Bartel :Which refits are canon then? Ottens 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::They are listed below in my comments in the Future section--Captain Mike K. Bartel ::It only says that changes were made. Which changes were made, that is doesn't say. Ottens 17:21, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::No, this passage says that the ship was refit due to design limitations. This simply isnt the case. We have NO IDEA why the E-B was refit, nor why the NX-2000 was modified. In fact, the opposite might be true, since the E-B modification is rarely seen, but the original configuration continues on in more numerous appearances--Captain Mike K. Bartel It seems unlikely to refit a vessel, unless the previous version had some limitations (limitations include either failures/errors or the simple fact that a refit better suits in a certain time). Still, it has never been mentioned on the show in dialogue of course, so it's non-canon. Removed. Ottens 21:47, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) ---- The Future While the expected life span of the Excelsior class was listed at 50 years, the class has lasted twice that. Sturdy, accommodating to crew and passengers, the Excelsior class is perhaps the most widely recognized class of starship in the Federation. The last refit of the Excelsior and Excelsior-Refit classes saw the addition of Type VIII Phaser Turrets, and saw a complete overhaul of her warp and computer cores. However, this was deemed the last refit of the class, with Starfleet wishing to integrate more and more Ambassador and later Nebula class vessels into the roles that had traditionally been served by the Excelsior class. With Excelsior class ships serving as the bulk of the fleet in engagements against both the Borg and the Dominion, the vessels have seen a startling attrition rate. Nearly 60 percent of the active Excelsiors in the fleet were destroyed or decommissioned following fleet engagements against threat vessels. In combat missions, recommissioned and revamped Steamrunner class vessels replaced the Excelsior class, the Excelsior was relegated more and more to both the exploration and diplomatic arms of Starfleet until the end of the Dominion War. While nearly 80 Excelsior class vessels remain in active service, Starfleet has officially retired the design and is keeping the remaining Excelsior class vessels in service until their estimated refit dates before decommissioning the vessels. * all three paragraphs: nice to know, but where does that come from? -- Kobi *The only revisions we know about to the original Excelsior-class design are **the changes made to the NX-2000 when it became NCC-2000 for ST:6 **the variation of the Enterprise-B add-ons **The Lakota, which was souped up with 24th century era tech (shown with E-B fittings) **An assumed refit to 24th century tech for all TNG era ships, but this is unproven --Captain Mike K. Bartel :How is this? Ottens 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) While the expected life span of the Excelsior class was listed at 50 years, the class has lasted twice that. Sturdy, accommodating to crew and passengers, the Excelsior class is perhaps the most widely recognized class of starship in the Federation. Although the Excelsiors was refitted several times, Starflet wishes to integrate more and more Ambassador and later Nebula class vessels into the roles that had traditionally been served by the Excelsior class. With Excelsior class ships serving as the bulk of the fleet in engagements against both the Borg and the Dominion, the vessels have seen a startling attrition rate. In combat missions, recommissioned and revamped Steamrunner class vessels replaced the Excelsior. Starfleet has officially retired the design and is keeping the remaining Excelsior class vessels in service until their estimated refit dates before decommissioning the vessels. Interior Main Bridge Located on top of the primary hull, the Excelsior's Main Bridge directly supervises all primary mission operations and coorindates all departmental activities. The bridge configuration is a simplified version of the new Galaxy class configuration, though due to the age of the Excelsior class, bridge configurations can vary from ship to ship. The central area of the bridge provides seating and information displays for the captain and two other officers. The captain's chair is raised from the rest of the bridge officers, to that of the surrounding level which includes... *logical -- Kobi *Though, since the Excelsior came first, it would be better to say the Galaxy Bridge was a modernized and expanded version of the Excelsior bridge in stead of the other way around. -- Redge 21:45, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) *um.. no excelsior was ever seen having a bridge like this, unless you count Admiral Hansen might have been on an Excelsior at wolf 359. The NCC-2000, NCC-1701-B both had redresses of the NCC-1701-A style, with only one center chair. Some TNG era bridges mightve been Galaxy redresses, but which? --Captain Mike K. Bartel :As stated, "due to the age of the Excelsior class, bridge configurations can vary from ship to ship". 1. It's quite logical to assume that 24th century Excelsiors had additional chairs next to the captain's chair, since that was quite common in that period, if I recall correctly. 2. The assumptions that the Excelsior bridge had these two additional chairs features is from one of the reference books listed, but I'm sorry I don't remember exactly which one. Ottens 13:19, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Well , any from a reference book would be non-canon. why cant we only describe Excelsior bridges actually seen on Trek? at least until we have a valid source for other data?--Captain Mike K. Bartel I do know that once all this discussion is resolved, this article has the makings of one of the finest Featured Articles. -- Redge 16:38, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) :That's what it's intended for. :P Anyway, reference books are used to add additional information. Gee, the Galaxy class page is almost completely TNG-Tech-Manuel-only... Ottens 16:59, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::Yes, but until you can furnish a reference to the Excelsior's bridge in any reference, canonical or not, i really see no need to include false data in this article..--Captain Mike K. Bartel Here's some new, fresh content: :Uhm. What's the point of copying that here? I hope you don't mind I removed it, because it's quite confusing. Anway, I've made some edits to the debated paragraph concerning the Main Bridge. It now reads... The bridge configuration is a simplified version of the later Galaxy class configuration, though due to the age of the Excelsior class, bridge configurations can vary from ship to ship. The central area of the bridge provides seating and information displays for the captain. On the more recent Excelsior class vessels, there are also seats for a first and second officer. The captain's chair is raised from the rest of the bridge officers, to that of the surrounding level which includes tactical and operations. Agreed.? Ottens 19:18, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *I still don't see the relevance of the Galaxy-class bridge. The Excelsior bridge is a more advanced version of that used on the Constitution refit (it was a redress of that set in most appearances), with very few similarities to the Galaxy bridge. There has never been an Excelsior seen with a first officer seat--Captain Mike K. Bartel :Also, since the Excelsior came earlier, it's bridge isn't a simplified version of the galaxy class, the Galaxy class is a more sophisticated version of the Excelsior. -- Redge 20:27, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) Removed. Ottens 21:47, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) ---- Just to reiterate all the points made above, unless any of this data has references, it is pointless and baseless speculation, and against the rules of Memory Alpha to include it in the article (logical or not, its still untrue unless there is a reference). --Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:34, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) True. Therefore, I've again looked over the entire article, and made a lot of changes. However, I must also point out that much of the information I had written on the Galaxy class page comes from the TNG Tech. Manuel, and because it has never been stated on the show, this book might just as well be considered non-canon (every reference book is non-canon that way). Still, I received few criticizm on that. :\ Well, as I said, I changed a lot, read all over again, and if you think anything should be changed, please write it here, underneath this comment. Thanks. Ottens 21:47, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I've removed the items that are disallowed by MA policy. :Do you have any valid source for any of the interior section information. To my knowledge, no Excelsior sickbay or engineering section has ever been seen except for brief glimpses in Star Trek III and Generations.. are you describing the sections as seen there? --Captain Mike K. Bartel ::Yeah you're right. I've removed all interior information we've never seen on screen. For what we know, the Excelsior doesn't even have a conference lounge; I've never seen it. I've also removed the note that there is a door leading to the Captain's Ready Room; in Star Trek III, we saw Captain Styles arriving from his quarters/ready room by turbolift, so as far as we know, there is no door leading to the Ready Room... :::He didn't come from his Ready Room, he came from his quarters. Unless you would expect to find a bed in a Ready Room? -- Redge 11:45, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::I'd also like to point out that I think it isn't exactly polite to simply remove the parts you didn't agree with: we were still discussing it. Ottens 11:22, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::When I read this page I keep wondering where exactly specific info came from. Could you add some in-line references? And also repeat the episodes you used as sources in the =References= section? -- Redge 11:56, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I'm sorry if it wasn't polite, but information that is without any reliable source doesn't have much place on the page. The entire page as written remains in the history in case we find something we can reinstate, I'm simply following up on another user's request that we verify this data. I went through point by point, made a general call to verify it, but no one could find any valid sources, so the data was removed. You maintained some might be from the TNG Tech Manual, but I have yet to find it. I've gone through and added sources for many individual data points, but I'm sure there is still a lot to contribute from individual episode dialogue references. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:11, 29 Jun 2004 (CEST)